Judgment This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 11.7.2007 in AS No. 47 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur, whereby he has confirmed the order dated 30.4.2003 in IP No. 61 of 1999 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. 2. No one appeared for the respondents at the hearing. 3. I have heard Mr. R. Dheeraj Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 filed IP No. 61 of 1999 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, under Sections 7 and 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short "the Act"), to adjudicate respondent Nos. 8 and 9 as insolvents and declare that the sale of the petition schedule property made in favour of the appellant is an 'act of insolvency'. 5. The petitioners in the I.P. pleaded that respondent Nos. 8 and 9 have obtained a loan of Rs. 1,90,000/- from them for the purpose of running hotel business by name "Subhani Tea Stall", that with the consent and in connivance of each other, they have alienated A-schedule property in favour of the appellant herein under registered sale deed bearing No.2894/99 dated 16.8.1999 for Rs. 1,50,000/-. They have further pleaded that the real value of the property was Rs. 4,00,000/- and that respondent Nos. 8 and 9 have executed the sale deed nominally in favour of the appellant, who is their close friend, in order to screen the property. They have further averred that respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were due to a tune of about Rs. 6,00,000/- to various other creditors. They have accordingly sought for the reliefs of declaring respondent Nos. 8 and 9 as insolvents, setting aside the sale deed, selling the petition schedule properties and to distribute the sale proceeds among the creditors. 6. In support of their claim, the petitioners in the I.P. examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of respondent Nos. 8 and 9, RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exs.B1 was marked. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has allowed the I.P. by declaring respondent Nos. 8 and 9 as insolvents and directing that the petition schedule property shall vest in the official receiver for due administration among the creditors. On behalf of respondent Nos. 8 and 9, RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exs.B1 was marked. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has allowed the I.P. by declaring respondent Nos. 8 and 9 as insolvents and directing that the petition schedule property shall vest in the official receiver for due administration among the creditors. The trial Court has also granted one year's time for discharge. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed AS No. 47/2003 which was dismissed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, Proddatur, by order dated 11.7.2007. Assailing both these orders, the appellant filed this C.M.S.A. 7. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant has advanced two submissions: (i) That the I.P. was filed beyond the period of three months stipulated in the proviso to Section 9(1)(c) of the Act from the occurrence of the alleged 'act of insolvency'; and (ii) that the trial Court has not framed issues. The learned Counsel, while elaborating his first submission argued that before the registered sale deed was executed by respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in favour of the appellant on 16.8.1999, a possessory agreement of sale was executed on 18.1.1999 and that the same was followed by the registered sale deed in question. He argued that for the purpose of reckoning the limitation under Section 9 of the Act, the date on which possessory agreement of sale was executed shall be considered. 8. In order to decide the first submission of the learned Counsel, Section 9 of the Act needs to be noticed. He argued that for the purpose of reckoning the limitation under Section 9 of the Act, the date on which possessory agreement of sale was executed shall be considered. 8. In order to decide the first submission of the learned Counsel, Section 9 of the Act needs to be noticed. It reads as under : Conditions on which creditor may petition:- (1) A creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition against a debtor unless- (a) the debt owing by the debtor to the creditor, or, if two or more creditors join in the petition, the aggregate amount of debts owing to such creditors, amounts to five hundred rupees, and (b) the debt is a liquidated sum payable either immediately or at some certain future time, and (c) the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded has occurred within three months before the presentation of the petition: Provided that where the said period of three months referred to in clause (c) expires on a day when the Court is closed, the insolvency petition may be presented on the day on which the Court re-opens. (2) If the petitioning creditor is a secured creditor, he shall in his petition either state that he is willing to relinquish his security for the benefit of the creditors in the event of the debtor being adjudged insolvent, or give an estimate of the value of the security. In the latter case, he may be admitted as a petitioning creditor to the extent of the balance of the debt due to him after deducting the value so estimated in the same way as if he were an unsecured creditor. The above reproduced provision would leave one in no doubt that specific time is stipulated for bringing an action against the debtor to declare him as an insolvent. The time limit starts from the time of commission of the 'act of insolvency'. Section 6 of the Act enumerates the 'acts of insolvency'. The various facets of the 'acts of insolvency' are mentioned in the said provision. Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act deal with transfer of properties. The time limit starts from the time of commission of the 'act of insolvency'. Section 6 of the Act enumerates the 'acts of insolvency'. The various facets of the 'acts of insolvency' are mentioned in the said provision. Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act deal with transfer of properties. They read as under: A debtor commits an act of insolvency in each of the following cases, namely: (a) if, in India or elsewhere, he makes a transfer of all or substantially all his property to a third person for the benefit of his creditors generally; (b) if, in India or elsewhere, he makes a transfer of his property or of any part thereof with intent to defeat or delay his creditors; (c) if in India or elsewhere, he makes any transfer of his property, or of any part thereof, which would, under this or any other enactment for the time being in force, be void as a fraudulent preference if he were adjudged an insolvent; From the above noted provisions, it is discernible that transfer of properties constitutes one of the facets of the 'act of insolvency'. 9. Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defined 'transfer of property'. It means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself and one or more other living persons; and "to transfer property" is to perform such act. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with documents of which registration is compulsory. Under clause (b) of sub-section (1) thereof, non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property are liable to be compulsorily registered. (The instruments of gift of immovable property is included in clause (a) of the said provision). Under Section 49 thereof, no document required by Section 17 or by any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered, shall affect any immovable property comprised therein, on confer any power to adopt, or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered. Under Section 49 thereof, no document required by Section 17 or by any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered, shall affect any immovable property comprised therein, on confer any power to adopt, or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered. These legal provisions would thus make it clear that no immovable property whose value is above Rs. 100/- can be transferred without the document for such transfer being registered. Without such registration, the document will not 'affect' the property. Unless the transfer of immovable property in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 takes place, the same does not fall within the provisions of Section 6(a) to (c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. 10. Undisputedly, the sale deed, in the present case, was registered only on 16.8.1999 and the I.P. was filed on 29.9.1999, well within the period of three months stipulated by Section 9(c) of the Act. 11. There is one other angle from which this aspect can be examined. Assuming that there was a possessory agreement, the same was not registered. In the absence of such registration, the general public is not expected to have knowledge of such a transaction. The registration of a document is intended to serve two purposes, namely, to fetch revenue for the State; and to act as a notice to general public that a transaction has taken place with regard to an immovable property (See: Sura) Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363 . Thus, mere possessory agreement which does not fall within the provisions of Section 9(c) of the Act per se does not constitute an 'act of insolvency' and has no relevance for the purpose of computing the time limit stipulated under Section 9(1)(c) of the Act. This submission accordingly falls to ground. 12. As respects the second submission of the learned Counsel, it equally has no force. A perusal of the order of the trial Court would show that in Para 6, it has framed the Point, namely, whether respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to be declared as insolvents? Under Order XIV sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 CPC, each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. 1 and 2 are entitled to be declared as insolvents? Under Order XIV sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 CPC, each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. Under sub-rule (4), issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact and (b) issues of law. Sub-rule (5) ordains that the Court must at the first hearing of the suit after reading the plaint and written statements, if any, and after examination under Rule 2 of Order X CPC and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. The Superior Courts have time and again held that trial Courts shall be circumspect in framing issues and that they cannot adjudicate disputes by framing omnibus issues or Points (See: Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia and others, 2001(1) ALD 134 (SC) = (2001)2 SCC 652 ; Annaimuthu Thevar (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Alagammal and others, (2005)6 SCC 202 ; Fiza Developers v. Inter-Trade Pvt. Ltd., (2009)17 SCC 796 and A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, 2012(5) ALD 41 (SC) = (2012)6 SCC 430 ). Undoubtedly, the trial Court has framed a cryptic Point without culling out the issues from out of the material propositions of fact and law from out of the pleadings of the parties. Such an erratic approach on the part of the trial Court cannot be appreciated. However, the redeeming feature of this case is that even in the absence of specific issues, the trial Court has dealt with all the relevant aspects and arrived at the conclusions based on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the deficiency from which the order of the trial Court suffered on account of non-framing of proper issues was made good by it by discussing the material aspects of the case and rendering sound reasons in support of its conclusions. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial Court only on the ground of non-framing of specific issues. 13. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial Court only on the ground of non-framing of specific issues. 13. Before closing the case, this Court would like to place on record the responsibility cast on the Advocates appearing for the parties to ensure that appropriate issues are framed. Though the Civil Rules of Practice does not provide for framing of draft issues, a practice is prevalent in our system where the Courts invite draft issues from the Counsel appearing for both the parties. If the Counsel are diligent in preparing draft issues, it would facilitate the Court to frame appropriate issues. Thus, in my opinion, the Counsel appearing in the cases equally share the responsibility for the Courts' failure to frame proper issues. This Court hopes and trusts that the Bar will play a more positive role in future in guiding the trial Courts to frame proper and appropriate issues. 14. In the result, the C.M.S.A. fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.